W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > September 2009

[whatwg] Cache Manifest: why have NETWORK?

From: Anne van Kesteren <annevk@opera.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:45:25 +0200
Message-ID: <op.u0s9lzut64w2qv@annevk-t60>
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:49:51 +0200, Michael Nordman <michaeln at google.com>  
> That probably makes sense too in some use cases. Without practical
> experience with this thing, its difficult to 'guess' which is of more  
> use.

Really? It seems quite natural to specify a catch-all fallback namespace  
and still want some resources to hit the network. I.e., as I demonstrated  
with an example:

   / /offline


Now Ian suggested I could instead do

   /request /request?fallback

... which could certainly work but would make NETWORK redundant. You  
argued however that NETWORK was needed because "a fallback resource with a  
mock error or empty response is busy work" While I did not quite  
understand this reason I suppose having the additional fallback while a  
network error should be sufficient is not great and therefore I suggested  
giving non-wildcard NETWORK resources priority.

You suggest this might make sense, but I've yet to see a good argument as  
to why the current approach makes sense. It certainly does not help with  
the example above.

Anne van Kesteren
Received on Friday, 25 September 2009 04:45:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:52 UTC